No one likes to break a website, but... given the options of breaking the website's Javascript features, or letting NoScript perpetually undermine the Easylist2 filter, there wasn't much choice for Easylist2.
Easylist2 has nothing to apologise for. If anything, staunchly defending the integrity of their list was a good thing.
Except EasyList wasn't doing anything wrong to begin with. It contained entries that should have blocked the ads, without resorting to domain-specific (obviously individually targeted) rules. It was only due to a flaw in ABP that these rules didn't apply.
When asked by the ABP author to implement domain-specific rules against NoScript's site, the correct response from EasyList ought to have been to point out that it wasn't their problem to fix.
Had ABP just fixed the bug, NoScript's ads would have disappeared but the rest of the site wouldn't have broken, and although the NoScript developer might have been pissed at his loss of revenue stream, the problem wouldn't have necessarily escalated -- there wouldn't have been the clear gloves-off challenge that implementing a specific rule targeting NoScript's ads represented.
There's a lot of overreacting and general stupidity in the whole chain of events (and good reasons why maybe you shouldn't push 'emergency' releases except after a few hours of calm consideration), the core of the problem was someone looking for a lazy way to avoid fixing a software bug.
Easylist2 has nothing to apologise for. If anything, staunchly defending the integrity of their list was a good thing.